A bit of a shock to those who championed O'Grady for so long. Do people now believe that he has not used it (or any other forms of PED) since? Let's just face it, it was a time of dope vs dope. Morality within the professional league just isn't worth discussing.

Last edited by sogood on Thu Jul 25, 2013 9:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Interesting that 2 riders who admit to epo doping - Julich & O'Grady - are only on the suspicious list & Hamilton who admits to using epo in that year, is absent completely.

Note that:- not all samples were retested (neither did all riders originally provide samples).

- The threshold for being confirmed by that 2004 test was far higher than it is today. The suspicious list would be deemed a positive A sample by today's standards but of course the correct anti-doping protocols cannot be used (e.g. ability for athlete to request B sample analysis etc)

cyclotaur wrote:Maybe the events of his early career were a driver for him to continue so long, so he would be remembered for his 'clean' achievements since then. Same for anyone else named who continued on from such a start to their pro-career.

What makes you think they stopped doping?

What makes you think they didn't?

I didn't say they didn't. I don't know if they did or didn't. But you seem sure that him (and others) stopped doping, which is quite a claim, so I'd like to know what makes you so sure.

IMO what's even worse than him doping in the first place is waiting until after he's retired and implicated before making a half arsed 'woe is me' confession. I don't care about excuses, cheating is cheating, they all knew the rules.

When man invented the bicycle he reached the peak of his attainments- Elizabeth West.

I didn't say they didn't. I don't know if they did or didn't. But you seem sure that him (and others) stopped doping, which is quite a claim, so I'd like to know what makes you so sure.

Perhaps I'm a little more forgiving than some others on here but a single positive test from 1998 until now would change my mind of course. There hasn't been one, and the sport relies on proof of guilt rather than the opposite. There is no practical mechanism from the UCI for any rider to come clean without being found out first. If there was we could have got past this drip-feed of old results years ago.

But If O'Grady had quit at 30yo everyone would have questioned the decision and been suspicious then anyway. I think on balance it's better that he continued to ride as long as he did, and I'm prepared take him at his word that it has all been clean since 1998, especially given there have been no adverse test results in that period.

The UCI has to shoulder the blame for this. They banned a substance with no actual means of enforcing the ban. It's fairly apparent that in 1998 everyone was on EPO. With no way to get busted, and the certain knowledge that everyone else was on it, you would either take it yourself or go home. Under those circumstances I have much sympathy for the riders of that era.

While I don't find it surprising he was doping, I do call BS on him stating he sourced his own PEDs and doped himself without the knowledge of the team.At the very least, they would (the team, or people within the team) have told him what to get, where to get it and how often to use it, and I find it pretty hard to believe that he simply drove to the nearest pharmacy, asked for EPO and went from there.

Anyways, as I said before, I'm not surprised at all, and you'd have to be a little naieve to think that Australian cyclists were immune from the drug sagas of the 80s and 90s.

Zynster wrote:The UCI has to shoulder the blame for this. They banned a substance with no actual means of enforcing the ban. It's fairly apparent that in 1998 everyone was on EPO. With no way to get busted, and the certain knowledge that everyone else was on it, you would either take it yourself or go home. Under those circumstances I have much sympathy for the riders of that era.

MarkG wrote:While I don't find it surprising he was doping, I do call BS on him stating he sourced his own PEDs and doped himself without the knowledge of the team.

I agree. He being a cyclists with no other academic/scientific background, how could he know about the pharmacology and administration methods of EPO? I can understand that he is trying to avoid dobbing on mates, but the statement that he did it all himself is total BS. But again, that's just the time in the business of professional cycling. Any lie is no more than the lies we find in the commercial world.

Zynster wrote:The UCI has to shoulder the blame for this. They banned a substance with no actual means of enforcing the ban.

Hardly! Applied to 2013, are you suggesting that UCI should not ban gene therapy given it's not readily enforceable? UCI would have been to blame if they did not ban it when they are aware of any substance that has PED properties.

Zynster wrote:The UCI has to shoulder the blame for this. They banned a substance with no actual means of enforcing the ban. It's fairly apparent that in 1998 everyone was on EPO. With no way to get busted, and the certain knowledge that everyone else was on it, you would either take it yourself or go home. Under those circumstances I have much sympathy for the riders of that era.

agreed. these were different times. i really doubt anyone in the peleton from that era hadnt "tried it once". in their situation, in those times, who wouldnt have. it appears not many....

Had O'Grady ever publicly made claims to never having used PED's? That's the main thing for me - not whether he tried it once or not, but whether he's lied about it and if so how blatant and upfront were those lies.

BastardSheep wrote:Had O'Grady ever publicly made claims to never having used PED's? That's the main thing for me - not whether he tried it once or not, but whether he's lied about it and if so how blatant and upfront were those lies.

I couldn't be bothered going back through 18 years of lies, but here are two from articles from cyclingnews last year.

It’s not all bad news according to O'Grady who believes the sport will be able to recover and move forward like it has many times before. He also added that he has never considered doping at any point throughout his career.

"It's never been a thought, never been an option. Ever since I've been with (coach) Charlie Walsh through the Institute of Sport, it (doping) and all that was just never an option.

"I've been happy with what I've been able to achieve with my natural ability."

O'Grady is adamant that despite the stigma, he saw no evidence of a doping culture.

"I'm just very lucky, very fortunate that the teams I was involved in that it [doping] was never an option," the 39-year-old told Cyclingnews. "It was never on the table. I think that has a lot to do with the people around you and the team bosses - they had a very different mentality to some others."

BastardSheep wrote:Had O'Grady ever publicly made claims to never having used PED's? That's the main thing for me - not whether he tried it once or not, but whether he's lied about it and if so how blatant and upfront were those lies.

"O'Grady said it was unfair that Armstrong's confession tarnished the wider peloton. ''The problem with people like Lance or any drug cheaters, they think everyone else is doing it so they have to do it. When in fact not everyone else is doing it,'' O'Grady said. ''They go on to bigger and better things and eventually it proves that it doesn't matter who you are, if you're Marion Jones or Lance Armstrong, if you cheat you will get caught.''

Zynster wrote:The UCI has to shoulder the blame for this. They banned a substance with no actual means of enforcing the ban. It's fairly apparent that in 1998 everyone was on EPO. With no way to get busted, and the certain knowledge that everyone else was on it, you would either take it yourself or go home. Under those circumstances I have much sympathy for the riders of that era.

yes, the riders were set up to fail. casting the issue as simply cheating or not cheating is grossly over-simplifying the matter. virtually everyone in the 1998 era was doping - how is it that they were all so dishonest? it's pretty clear that the circumstances heavily influenced them to 'cheat'.

in defence of the UCI, measures such as the 50% hemocrit level were imposed to protect the health of riders, who otherwise were tempted to turn their blood into soup and drop dead in their sleep. this is more important than cheating in a sporting event.

BastardSheep wrote:Had O'Grady ever publicly made claims to never having used PED's? That's the main thing for me - not whether he tried it once or not, but whether he's lied about it and if so how blatant and upfront were those lies.

it's obvious that someone can either choose to admit to doping, or lie about it. the former kind of defeats the purpose of doping, leaving them with the latter - denial. why are people outraged by this?

i'm not excusing it, but the lying goes with the doping. it's not an aggravating factor.

My thoughts?"If he'd have come clean that year and then been outspoken it would have been seen as him trying to right his wrongs, but I can't help but be sceptical about his motives. Why the moral backbone now Stuey?! When you've gained so much and earned our respect and support since?!The days of Australian cycling being drug free were always a hope for the best until 2013. Now I'm left gutted, pissed off and wondering why I supported our boys for so many years. Grades was a sporting hero of mine because he championed clean competition. THANKYOU Cadel. Please lead the way for the next generation. Winning means !! BAN ME NOW FOR SWEARING !! to us. Coming midfield and having sweated blood for a result means everything!"

The response from one of Australia's best ever track cyclists."It's always the best actor that misleads." Damn straight! He wore the yellow jersey that year! "Insert profanity here!".

BastardSheep wrote:Had O'Grady ever publicly made claims to never having used PED's? That's the main thing for me - not whether he tried it once or not, but whether he's lied about it and if so how blatant and upfront were those lies.

Many times, publicly and to formal investigative sources. Most recently was the Nicki Vance report commissioned by OGE.

I see no reason to believe his most recent statement is any more truthful than all his prior statements denying ever doping.

I still want to know the outcome of the Vinnicombe revelations on the current senior cycling official who assisted with his doping. That seems to have been conveniently swept aside.

It's sad that it has to come to this to get O'grady to confess. He would have happily played along acting like it had never happened if this didn't come out. It's also sad that these results have been known since around 2005 but they've just been sitting on them.